Quality of Life Research

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 259–264 | Cite as

Reliability and construct validity of the SF-36 in Turkish cancer patients

Brief Communication

Abstract

In this study, we assessed the reliability and construct validity of the SF-36, Turkish version on 419 cancer patients. Cronbach’s α coefficients surpassed the 0.70 criterions for all subscales indicating good internal consistency. Results of the test–retest method showed that the stability coefficients for the eight subscales of the SF-36 ranged between 0.81 and 0.94. Principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation confirmed the presence of seven factors in the SF-36: physical functioning, role limitations due to physical and emotional problems, mental health, general health perception, bodily pain, social functioning, and vitality. In conclusion, the Turkish version of the SF-36 is a suitable instrument that could be employed in cancer research in Turkey.

Keywords

cancer patients construct validity reliability SF-36 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Parker, SG, Peet, SM, Jagger, C, Farhan, M, Castleden, CM 1998Measuring health status in older patients: The SF-36 in practiceAge Ageing271318PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Hobson, P, Bhowmick, B, Meara, J 1997Use of the SF-36 questionnaire in cerebrovascular diseaseStroke28464465Google Scholar
  3. Atagoz K. Quality of life among patients with chronic obstructive lung disease. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Dokuz Eylul, Izmir, Turkey, 1998.Google Scholar
  4. Aydı ın, S, Yavuz, T, Duven, H 2002Effects of coronary by-pass operations on quality of life in early stage in patients who over 65 years oldTurk J Geriatr56467Google Scholar
  5. Chen, AY, Frankowski, R, Bishop-Leone, J, Hebert, T, Leyk, S, Lewin, J, Goepfert, H 2001The development and validation of a dysphasia-specific quality-of-life questionnaire for patients with head and neck cancer: The Anderson dysphasia inventoryArch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg127870876PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Jenkinson, C, Coulter, A, Wright, L 1993Short form 36 (SF-36) health survey questionnaire: Normative data for adults of working ageBr Med J30614371440Google Scholar
  7. McHorney, CA, Ware, JE, Lu, JF, Sherbourne, JD 1994The MOS 36-item Short Form Health Survey III: Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groupsMed Care324066PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Pinar, R, Cinar, S, Issever, M, Albayrak, M, Ilhan, S 1995Quality of life in ESRD: Influence of haemodialysis and renal transplantationCı ınar Hemsire Derg115Google Scholar
  9. Pinar R. Self-reported quality of life and effecting factors in patients with diabetes mellitus. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. Ware, JE, Sherbourne, CD 1992The MOS 36 item short form health survey (SF 36)Med Care30473483PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Ware, JE 1993Measuring patients’ views: The optimum outcome measureBr Med J30614291430Google Scholar
  12. Aaronson, NK, Muller, M, Cohen, PD,  et al. 1998Translation, validation, and norming of the Dutch language Version of the SF-36 health survey in community and chronic disease populationsJ Clin Epidemiol5110551068CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Ware, JE 1989User’s Manual/SF 36 Health Status Questionnaire.New England Medical Center, The Health InstituteBoston, MAGoogle Scholar
  14. Fi şek G. Personal communication, 2002.Google Scholar
  15. Gandek B. Psychometric analysis of the SF-36 Health Survey: Turkish data. Unpublished manuscript, 1997.Google Scholar
  16. Cronbach, LJ 1951Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of testsPsychometrika16297334Google Scholar
  17. Shrout, PE, Fleiss, JL 1979Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing interrater reliabilityPhychol Bull36420428Google Scholar
  18. Streiner, DL, Norman, GR 1989Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and UseOxford University PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. Ozdamar, K 1999Statistical Data Analysis with Standard Statistical Programs2nd edKaan PublishingEskisehir, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  20. Jolliffe, IT 1986Principal Component AnalysisSpringerNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Ware, JE, Gandek, B 1994IQOLA Project Group. The SF-36 Health Survey: Development and use in mental health research and the IQOLA projectInt J Ment Health234973Google Scholar
  22. Sullivan, M, Karlsson, J, Ware, JE 1995The Swedish SF-36 Health Survey-I. Evaluation of data quality, scaling assumptions, reliability and construct validity across general populations in SwedenSoc Sci Med4113491358CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Nunnaly, JC, Bernstein, IH 1994Psychometric TheoryMcGraw-HillNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Brink, PJ, Wood, MJ 1989Advanced Design in Nursing ResearchSage PublicationsLondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Garratt, AM, Ruta, DA, Abdalla, MI, Buckingham, JK, Russell, IT 1993The SF-36 health survey questionnaire: An outcome measure suitable for routine use within the NHS?Br Med J30614401444Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Medical Nursing, College of NursingMarmara UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations